Mikey851

According to the performance map of the TVS, we would be running about 20% more efficient at a similar pressure ratio as the M62 and never leaving that efficiency range through the rpm band. This is very close to being the same difference in efficiency we would experience with the twin screw at a similar pressure ratio.

When comparing the two, they both perform very closely as far as efficiency goes. I can't say which is better, but from what I've read the twin screw can support more expansion and still maintain it's efficiency. Here is the TVS performance map; it is totally different than most roots maps look and it's all due to their design changes.

http://www.eatonperformance.com/R410-chart.html

Edit: I'm not biased towards one or the other actually. It looks as though Eaton found a way to increase the roots efficiency from only being acceptable to being useable; this doesn't make it better than the other choices everyone has but it does at least make it a more viable option.

Cobalt_Supercharged

I agree it is a much more viable option, but when people like Blown 4-banger are wanting huge power, the twin-screw will allow them to take the blower to as far as the engine or the drive bearings can handle.

The TVS is best for those looking for a reliable 300WHP. If you are looking for more, the twin-screw or turbo is the best option. That is just my take anyways. The real advantage of the TVS is the bypass eliminating drag on the motor where the twin-screw is always consuming power. (granted much less than the roots under full boost)

Mikey851

I agree. At least the TVS is another option to suit everyone's needs.

Blk06SSTexMan

subscribed!

chevysalesman614

hell with that i'll take a t3/t4 hybrid

shabodah

The thing people don't seem to understand is that by changing from a roots supercharger to a twin screw or a turbo, you have to make a compromise. Changing from the M62 to the TVS R1050 would not require a compromise. Fuel economy, powerband, driveability, etc, will not change very much with the swap. Both the turbo and twin-screw are going to make more top-end power, sure, but they will both be less-efficient at idle and cruising speeds, costing you fuel economy, and each will move the power band around a bit, which is fine on a drag car, but can be a pain on a road track, or even when stuck in stop-and-go driving.

cakeeater

errr, i guaruntee you, fuel economy would be better with a proper turbo setup and would have minimal lag. The tvs is the most rediculous thing i have ever seen, eaton just needs to break down and make a damn twin-screw. "twin vorticies supercharger" or "twin-screw with a manifold." for the money, you are not gonna gain that much performance by swapping out to a roots. I don't know why you want such an early powerband anyway with a FWD application...a twin-screw would be much better for you guys imo and a turbo would be best.

shabodah

I beg to differ about fuel economy, but the rest of your argument isn't a bad one. Why won't Eaton make a twin-screw? It costs almost 2x the R&D and tooling- male and female rotor versus two identical rotors. On a FWD application, you certainly don't want too much torque down low, again, I concur. I think we're you'll see the biggest gains with TVS setups, is from the vehicle manufacturers. It doesn't necessarily make sense to pay $2500 to swap a m62 for a R1050, but if makes far more sense to have GM use it instead during original assembly. And at the OEM level, you better believe the difference in price between a TVS and twin-screw matters.

The R2300 is a cheap and easy upgrade for GM and Ford to use on Corvettes and Mustangs, respectively, and in those vehicles, having torque down low is less of an issue.

Edit: I want to put an LSJ engine behind a F40 6-speed which has the 3.55 final gear, and stick it in a Fiero, where all of the things working against the RL are working for me instead. There, a TVS blower might make a decent amount of sense.

Cobalt_Supercharged

The twin screw would just expand the powerband, not really move it. It would provide more low end than the M62 and keep building after the point where the M62 drops off. A turbo or centrifugal would move the powerband.

And I agree that too much low end on a FWD car is a disaster, but that is where boost management and torque management in first gear come into play. Better yet driver management. Something most people neglect.

cakeeater

you guys also need to keep in mind how far turbo technology has come in the past decade. Many systems now are reaching peak boost VERY early in the rpm's. Obviously you are not gonna make boost just off idle like a roots or twin-screw, but with the right sizing and supporting mods for the turbo, lag is almost non-existant.

Cobalt_Supercharged

That also depends on the amount of money you are looking to spend and what power level you want to reach. Tag used a GT2871R and made full boost ~3,200rpm, but how long before it runs out of breath and at what psi, I don't know.

ReMz

i havent read anything but this first post. customer support bullshit anyone? "dont worry, be happy.... i have no idea what im talking about.... tvs what?"

I think this would be a fairly worthwhile upgrade to our cars tho. I'll be interested to see numbers when the first person on this site does a blower swap to the TVS.

shabodah

I do realize how far turbo tech has come in the last few years. Some of the twin scroll turbo are absolutely amazing, IMHO, so I wouldn't discount them as a good option, regardless. But you're going to spend a bit of money on a real nice top of the line turbo, not that you need something that nice to get decent results.

Anyway, I think a lot of turbo guys are not keeping in mind how far supercharger tech has changed in the last few years, either. This TVS change is basically Eaton's 6th generation setup, IIRC. If you compared it to any of the old hotrod style blowers, the difference is just as big of a deal as the difference between today's turbo's and those of the 70's.

I've owned cars with both types of FI, and I enjoy them both greatly.